Notice how she insinuates that The New Agenda website, which I built and of which I am the editor, thank you very much, is funded by right-wing Republican money.

Oh, Naomi. Are you still mad about the Jesus thing?

It’s true, a few years ago I played a little April Fool’s Day joke at Naomi’s expense (and Jane Fonda’s too, though Jane isn’t swaggering around on teevee accusing me of being a front for the Scaife Foundation):

Actually that whole post was really aimed at the insufferable Hugo Schwyzer (whom I code-named Harvey in the post), but I’m such a nice person I took out all the links to his execrable blog in order to spare his feelings.

57 Responses to “Naomi Wolf is still mad at me about Jesus, I see”

I don’t understand what happened – did they bring in Naomi Wolf just to rebut The New Agenda?

By the way – leave Jane alone! She gets a life time pass, IMO, for having donated several million dollars to Planned Parenthood to do educational activities and electoral communications about the evil that is George W. Bush (in 2000). You heard right – several *million* dollars.

And her influence on Ted – tens if not hundreds of millions pumped into choice and enviro groups thanks to her influence. — Which reminds me of the irony that the left, forever suspicious if not outright antagonistic to rich business types, would be nowhere without the benefits of their largess – Turner, Corzine, Lear, Soros, the Gates family (even Bill’s dad gives to progressive causes incl. women’s issues) etc. –

Anyway, Jane’s far from perfect, but I think she knows that and I do believe she does her best to do good.

Naomi Wolf on the other hand – eww, gross! Although Violet, with your secret identity and all, how do we know you’re not a mole for The Capitalists (another favorite Old Left trope).

You mean that The New Agenda has all this Capitalist Money and are manipulating all of us? I am taken aback at this implication of Ms Wolfe. I am a pawn now of the right wing, since I support the New Agenda? This appearance by her –a debut in her role as Apologist for The One as a maven of feminism? CNN is one great big Apologist already, a love fest at the end with the anchor. She mentioned her Bat Mitzvah and is into Jesus now? Strange.

Seriously, I agree with Nina M. about Jane Fonda. We have to cut her some slack.

I can’t even watch to the end without commenting. WTF?
1. Why is she trying to distract people into thinking this is a protest to having a man on the cover of MS? The problem is that he is ANYTHING BUT a feminist. How the hell does she think he is good for women?

2. So so very damaging and unbelievabley STUPID to keep perpetuating this lie that anyone that disagrees with Obama is a secret Republican. At the same time she is saying that it is good that left and right wing women work together, while she says that the “right wing” is hiding behind a front and trying to fool women. What a crock of sh*t.

It’s very irritating that they are reframing this as an argument about whether or not a man can be a feminist when what it is actually about is how a misogynist like Obama is not a feminist in any way, shape or form.

Also what on earth was Wolf going on about, claiming that feminists have been fighting for years to have the ear of someone in power? I’d always thought we’d been fighting to get *women* into positions of power. She’s so wishy washy. That little piece will probably get her invited for dinner at the White House in the first hundred days though. Maybe what she really meant was that what she has been fighting for all these years is to have the ear of a man in power. Ugh.

This is a little bit like putting a photo of an abusive husband on the cover of MS, isn’t it? And than along comes Naomi and MS, completely missing the point by trying to explain to you that men can be feminists, too. Yes, but preferably not the one that just spent the past two years beating up on women. A man who has never apologized, never spoken out against the abuse of women, never even condemned Randi Rhodes for calling Clinton and Ferraro whores.

I’m not surprised that MSM made this about Can Men be Feminists. They always go for the soft story, rather than worry their little pea brains about anything worthy of debate. Probably afraid if they didn’t have a Obot on to pshaw all of the crazy feminist hoopla, some one would actually expose Obama for what he is.

Oh, wow. I hadn’t realized Wolf was such a … lightweight, until hearing that.

I was a bit bemused to see the following Wolf quote in wiki:

Wolf has spoken favorably about the dress required of women living in Muslim countries. She observed

“I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband.”

Um, no wonder she responds well to politicians who think women need to involve husband and pastor in important decisions about our bodies.

And her consulting to Al Gore to focus on making him an “alpha male” — kind of ties in well to her overal gestalt, no?

Well, that, folks, is what the Obama kool-aid does to people’s brains. Those women sound like complete fools, but they don’t know it. Suddenly the world is wonderful and if feminists would just stop being so darned segregated, men and women could live in peace. In Uncle Barry’s treehouse I guess.

One thing Republicans have done that feminists have not been as successful at is making our leading intellectual theorists (like Dr. Socks!) into famous, respected figures, so that people listen to them and they are to ‘go-to’ authorities. Instead, our ‘leading’ feminists (in public perception) are all the lightweight-brained pretty-girl feminists who just parrot conventional patriarchal wisdom. That’s how we end up with the Naomi Wolff’s of the world out there representing us. We need a George Will of feminism. Or something.

One thing I’ve always liked about Clinton (and one reason why I supported her) is that she can take an idea that is anathema to The Village and/or the Misogyny Dogs and phrase it in a way that that gets her point across, and strongly, but is somehow palatable to them. Witness all the members of the Sen. Foreign Relations Committee falling all over themselves to agree with Clinton that women’s and girls’ rights internationally are extremely important and should be a core value of our foreign policy. (Just WHERE were these guys during the last two years?).

What faux feminists like Naomi Wolff and Gloria (at least this past year) do, though, is take ideas that are already palatable to The Village/Misogyny Dogs and stamp them as feminist. For those not inclined to use their analytical skills, the two things are indistinguishable. For anyone who uses their brain, they are miles different.

Didn’t Wolff start out as a ‘journalist’? That explains a lot. She’s just not an intellectual heavyweight, although the extent of her swooning orgasmic display here was a bit surprising.

OMG, Violet, that post about Johnny Depp as Jesus is beyond priceless.

Thank you. It was a religious experience.

It would have been better if I’d left in the links to Hugo’s blog. For example, the “please be real” prayer is what Hugo said his first prayer was when he found Jesus. It was really quite a pointed little satire. But I took out all the links before I published it. I hate myself.

Oh man, it’s so much worse, V. At the end, she also suggested that feminists need to “think outside the box” about feminism and Obama, by which she means we need to start thinking that things that don’t look anything like feminism ARE feminism. Neoconic create-your-own-reality, anyone?

Not to mention “thinking outside the box” is sooooo INSIDE THE FREAKING BOX now. Grrr.

The more I see of Donna Brazille and Naomi Wolfe, the more I’m convinced that Al Gore was purposely sabotaged in 2000. Which makes me wonder who’s funding their payroll. A little projection there, Naomi?

I love how she implied our callousness toward economic issues and their effect on women and children – unlike an enlightened person like her, of course. Wonder if anyone ever told her about Rezko’s freezing tenants? Perhaps she thought it was actually an advantage for them, made it easier for them to keep their banana daquiris properly chilled.

Johnny Depp as Jesus! Now there’s a religious icon I’d happily display in my home. Hmmmm. My niece’s dad is an artist, and he promised to do a painting for me once I decide what I want…

Egads, I had never heard of Naomi Wolfe before, and her wiki bio confused me more than her purported ‘reasoning’ on that CNN clip. If she is the “third wave” of feminism, I am definitely getting off at the second.

The way that CNN anchor totally missed the point (it’s not about it being a man) makes me crazy.

“I learned that Muslim attitudes toward women’s appearance and sexuality are not rooted in repression, but in a strong sense of public versus private, of what is due to God and what is due to one’s husband.”

Uh, Naomi? That whole ‘due to God/husband’ shit? That is the repression, you ignorant twit. Gods below, but I hate the stupid.

I think of the movie Gaslighting a lot, because that’s what it’s like. Trying to sell us a misogynist as a feminist, as if the sky were really green and you’re just crazy if you can’t see it.

To really pile on the tinfoil, I think the purpose is to create rifts in the feminist community, much like Bush promoted the idea of “you’re with us or you’re against us”. Separate, divide, control and than no one can unite and hold you accountable.

Oohh the “silliness” ..Got to love the “Christmas” comment. she stops short of calling us (real) Feminists a bunch of nagging harpies who don’t know a good thing when ya got it.

This is where Feminism goes wrong, because we don’t know how to appreciate the men when they do the right thing, and we don’t reward them properly when they do the dishes. That’s why they don’t do them.

Violet- I have often wondered why you have a link to the Feminist Law Professors blog on your site. I quit going there a long time ago, and I just went back there to peek and once again I am sorry I did.

What a bunch of spineless kool-aid drinking apologists. Also- so many men over there telling women what feminism is all about. That site gets under my skin.

I can’t believe how Siskind’s protest of this has been spun. These people do not get that Obama won because of extreme misogyny in this country! Do they really think he was qualified to be president on his own merit? I mean how ridiculous are these Obama supporters?

And to add insult to injury, misogyny was openly compared to race and even though the misogyny was a gazillion times worse than the racism, the country declared that race was more sacred than gender and that women were not to be given equal consideration and respect as citizens of this country! I mean this was bad! Our sisters in Sweden were fainting at the sheer misogynistic hatred, all in the name of electing Obama! There were some seriously big statements on the state of civil rights in our country this year–for both women and gays, btw. Meanwhile these same women have spent a lifetime fighting against racism and fighting for minorities. It was an enormous slap in the face to watch women be cheerfully humiliated and gleefully hated by all the country’s demographics. I could go on.

Anyway, this was done ALL IN THE NAME OF ELECTING OBAMA. THAT is why it is so insulting to see him on the cover. Wake up, Wolf, et. al!! Next are we going to see Wolf sporting “Bros before hos” and “I wish Hillary had married OJ instead” tees? What is going on??!

Here’s the fundamental problem (I love how the clip turned into an argument about whether men can be feminists, when Siskind already said that wasn’t the issue) – the problem is that you have Wolf and many other famous feminist women who dominate media coverage who are just in it for their own celebrity status. Sure, it’s not that they don’t care about women, but they will always go along with the mainstream because it helps them to maintain their celebrity. You’ve also got too many famous feminists who really have no clue what goes outside of their own little world, and that is really the heart of the problem. They have no idea what Obama really thinks about feminists and has for his entire lifetime. They have no idea how much Ludacris and his fans enjoy watching them fawn all over Obama and feel validated in their woman-hating (and motivated, also, mark my words). They have no idea how much this empowers the misogynists who truly enjoyed and relished in humiliating women for Obama.

But anyway, then you have real activists -people who see what is going on with the world’s women, with eyes and ears wide open, and who are mobilized and impassioned to seriously roll back centuries of oppression of women. Who see that the subjugation of women is by far and away the worst human rights disaster in history. Women like Siskind, who see the harsh realities, who see that we’ve got a gigantic slave trade and a gender violence pandemic going on behind the scenes of this election, and they’re dead serious about their cause. And by the way, George Bush kicking out the Taliban and manipulating the feminist cause to cover up his own agenda? Spare me. Tell that to the Afghan women and see what they say. Bush deserves tons of credit for that and he should be on the cover of Ms. because he’s done more for women than Obama ever has.

Anyway, Violet – you, Siskind, the New Agenda, and all your supporters are right on track. Do not listen to this self-congratulatory nonsense from Wolf. You are all 100 million times more authentic than the celebrity feminists who criticize you. Don’t back down and don’t let up!

Anne, the post that drove me away in the first place is when some man- I believe his name was David- maybe not, wrote an article about how dangerous Sarah Palin is, and he posted a video of the rape kit lie on your site and everyone there defended it.

I responded with the fact that it was a lie, and no one seemed to care. And now you seem so offended that I disagree with you. So…that leads me to reasonably believe that you agree with the people that write articles for your site.

One thing Republicans have done that feminists have not been as successful at is making our leading intellectual theorists (like Dr. Socks!) into famous, respected figures, so that people listen to them and they are to ‘go-to’ authorities. Instead, our ‘leading’ feminists (in public perception) are all the lightweight-brained pretty-girl feminists who just parrot conventional patriarchal wisdom. That’s how we end up with the Naomi Wolff’s of the world out there representing us. We need a George Will of feminism. Or something.

I’d only add that I don’t think it’s just a Republican thing and that’s one way this primary season slapped me upside the head and woke me up. I realized Democrats and “progressives” were doing/saying a lot of the same things, and I couldn’t tell the pigs from the people at the end of the book.

In any case, Valhalla’s comment speaks to Violet’s larger point about narratives. We don’t have the authority of a mainstream historical narrative — and that fact that women like Wolf are presented as representing feminism tells the tale. I wish I could hear someone like Violet on All Things Considered!

Completely off topic. In my state of innocence here in cool Britannia, I only recently became apprised of the existence of Hugo Schwyzer. What a patronising condescending fool he is. Reaching out from his pinnacle of white heterosexual manly wisdom to the women, gays and other shunned members of society, to save us.

When I need a messiah,Hugo, I’ll let you know. Though I agree Johnny Depp would be better.

Having not read Hugo’s blog in ages I popped over to see what’s new over yonder. I’m trying hard today not to hate all men and reading his nonchalant statement about “consensual sexual relationships” he had with students of his is tipping me into Uzi territory.

(drift, sorry, but liberal blogs are silent) Portland’s gay mayor Sam Adams groomed a teen intern then asked him to lie about having sex with him, lied to the public about it when it was exposed during the election, and hired an reporter who was asking questions about the affair for a 55K a year environmentalist job she was entirely unqualified to do.

I am so raging about how much authority-hogging men like Schwyzer and Adams see vulnerable youths they are trusted with mentoring as cuddly cocksockets that I could seriously punch either of them in their predatory faces right now.

Fwiw, after reading there daily for a couple of years, I, too, removed Feminist Law Professors from my bookmarks due to the Palin bashing. Along with a good number of feminist leaders and feminist bloggers, they chose party over women and so lost my readership and support.

I realize Ann is good people; I wouldn’t have read from FLP for so long if she wasn’t. Truth be told, Wolfe is probably good people, too. But along with many, many other feminist women, they chose Dem before Fem in 2008 and I just can’t go along with that.